Flitcraft Ltd & Ors v Price & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 136 (27 February 2024)

Flitcraft Ltd & Ors v Price & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 136 (27 February 2024)

Section 67(3) of the Patents Act 1977 is a procedural requirement and does not deprive an exclusive licensee of standing to sue for infringement; the court has discretion to allow joinder of the true proprietor post-judgment where the objectives of the section can still be achieved. The amendment to join the Official Receiver did not materially alter Supawall's claim, and Supawall's conduct did not warrant dismissal or penal costs. The costs order and apportionment between Mr Price and Supawall were within the trial judge's discretion and reflected the distinct nature of their claims and the issues litigated.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 136
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Flitcraft Limited; Appellant/respondent: Garry Flitcroft; Appellant/respondent: Thomas Flitcroft; Respondent/appellant: Philip Price; Respondent/appellant: Supawall Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Exclusive Licence, Costs Orders, Joinder of Parties, Bankruptcy and IP Rights, Fraudulent Evidence
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Exclusive Licence Costs Orders Joinder of Parties Bankruptcy and IP Rights Fraudulent Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flitcraft Limited

Appellant/respondent

Garry Flitcroft

Appellant/respondent

Thomas Flitcroft

Appellant/respondent

Philip Price

Respondent/appellant

Supawall Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusive licensee (Supawall) could amend to join the true proprietor (Official Receiver) post-judgment under section 67(3) Patents Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether Supawall's claim should be dismissed for failure to join the proprietor ab initio
  3. 3 Whether Supawall should pay all costs up to amendment if joinder allowed

Ratio Decidendi

Section 67(3) of the Patents Act 1977 is a procedural requirement and does not deprive an exclusive licensee of standing to sue for infringement; the court has discretion to allow joinder of the true proprietor post-judgment where the objectives of the section can still be achieved. The amendment to join the Official Receiver did not materially alter Supawall's claim, and Supawall's conduct did not warrant dismissal or penal costs. The costs order and apportionment between Mr Price and Supawall were within the trial judge's discretion and reflected the distinct nature of their claims and the issues litigated.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Flitcraft's appeal dismissed; Supawall permitted to amend to join Official Receiver; no penal costs order against Supawall for late joinder.
  • Mr Price to pay Flitcraft's costs of his failed patent claim on the indemnity basis (60% of 75% of defendants' total costs).